Friday, May 06, 2011

Mark Weisbrot: Osama Bin Laden Provoked a US "War on Terror" that Strengthened His Movement

I must say I appreciate the historical perspective provided by Mark Weisbrot in his recentarticle in The Guardian newspaper of Britain. True to his word, Weisbrot takes "a sober look at the reality behind all the hype" around the recent assassination of Osama bin Laden (right) by U.S. forces in Pakistan. Weisbrot's commentary is reprinted below with added images and links.

________________________

Osama bin Laden: Cold War Veteran

Al-Qaida's mastermind knew only too well how to manipulateUS foreign policy to make America behave like an imperial tyrant

By Mark Weisbrot

The GuardianMay 3, 2011

Osama bin Laden, in a cave while fighting in the Afghan-Russian war in the 1980s.(Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features.)

The killing of Osama bin Laden is being celebrated by the US media and government officials who spin it as one of the most important events since 11 September 2001. To the extent that it weakens al-Qaida, that would certainly be a gain. But it is worth taking a sober look at the reality behind all the hype.

Bin Laden, who – like Saddam Hussein and other infamous mass murderers – was supported by the United States government for years before he turned against it, changed the world with the most destructive terrorist act ever committed on US soil. But the reasons that he was able to do that have as much to do with US foreign policy at that particular juncture as with his own strategy and goals.

Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan during the war with Russia.(Photograph: Sipa Press / Rex Features)

Bin Laden's goal was not, as some think, simply to bring down the US empire. That is a goal shared by most of the world, who – fortunately for us – would not use terrorist violence to further this outcome. His specific goal was to transform the struggle between the United States and popular aspirations in the Muslim world into a war against Islam, or at least create the impression for many millions of people that this was the case. As we look around the world 10 years after the attack, we can see that he had considerable success in this goal. The United States is occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, bombing Pakistan and Libya, and threatening Iran – all Muslim countries. To a huge part of the Muslim world, it looks like the United States is carrying out a modern-day crusade against them, despite President Obama's assertions to contrary Sunday night.

This situation, along with the United States' continued role of supporting the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, pretty much guarantees a steady stream of recruits for any terrorist movement of the kind bin Laden was organising, for the foreseeable future. In that sense, bin Laden was successful.

This is somewhat remarkable considering that, as many observers have pointed out, bin Laden at first appeared to have made a tactical blunder with the attacks of 11 September 2001, since this caused him to lose his base in Afghanistan – the one Islamic state that was at least sympathetic to his organisation. But after President Bush decided to use 9/11 as a pretext not only for invading Afghanistan, but also Iraq, these wars combined to put bin Laden and his movement back in business on a larger scale.

Could bin Laden have known that the US response to 9/11 would have made his movement even stronger, even if he lost his base in Afghanistan? I would say it is likely. While it was not predictable that President Bush would necessarily invade Iraq – although it was a strong possibility – it was foreseeable that the US government would seize on 9/11 to create a new overarching theme for its interventions throughout the world.

For a decade prior to the 9/11 attacks, Washington was without such an overall ideological framework. Until 1990, there were four decades of a "war against communism" that was used to justify everything from the overthrow of non-communist democratic governments in the western hemisphere (Guatemala, Chile, etc) to large-scale warfare in Vietnam, as well as hundreds of military bases throughout the world. The Soviet Union collapsed, the cold war ended, but the military bases and interventions continued. Prior to 9/11, the military interventions had to be done on an ad hoc basis (for example, "enemy-of the-month" as in Panama or the first Iraq war). But this is a weak basis for mobilising public opinion, and, in general, Americans have to be convinced that their own security is at stake in order to acquiesce to most sustained military adventures.

The "war on terror" was made to order for the post-cold war era, and enthusiasts such as then Vice President Dick Cheney noticed this immediately, before any wars were launched. Within five days of the 9/11 attacks, Cheney was on television proclaiming that the war against terrorism was "a long-term proposition": the "kind of work that will take years".

Indeed, it has, and with US drone strikes in Pakistan killing civilians and generating more hatred weekly, a cycle of violence is perpetuated that can go on for many years to come.

Of course, this was not inevitable. Ironically, the killing of bin Laden confirms what the left has maintained since 2001: that the occupation of Afghanistan was not necessary or justified in order to go after bin Laden. The killing of bin Laden was mainly an intelligence operation – the US did not have to invade or occupy Pakistan in order to carry it out. The same would have been true while he was in Afghanistan.

And now that he is gone, calls in Afghanistan for the US to leave are already intensifying; and they are picking up in the US, as well.

Since bin Laden is now dead, we will never know what he was thinking when he planned the 9/11 attacks. But as someone who was Washington's ally during the cold war, he could easily have understood how these attacks would likely lead to a "war on terror" that would strengthen his movement. Despite being a fanatical terrorist, bin Laden knew his enemy.

1 comment:

Anonymous
said...

Having wandered through your blog now and then, on a variety of topics, it seems that when you describe it as "progressive, gay, Catholic", you are telling its prioritized truth. Progressivism is your first commitment, then the gay stuff, and whatever is left of Catholicism comes in third. All of which makes you, IMHO, a sort of Episcopalian.

Ask yourself, does your Catholic identity ever require you to make a substantive critique and or rejection of the agendas or values of the gay or the progressive worlds?

I established The Wild Reed in 2006 as a sign of solidarity with all who are dedicated to living lives of integrity – though, in particular, with gay people seeking to be true to both the gift of their sexuality and their Catholic faith. The Wild Reed's original by-line read, "Thoughts and reflections from a progressive, gay, Catholic perspective." As you can see, it reads differently now. This is because my journey has, in many ways, taken me beyond, or perhaps better still, deeper into the realities that the words "progressive," "gay," and "Catholic" seek to describe.

Even though reeds can symbolize frailty, they may also represent the strength found in flexibility. Popular wisdom says that the green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm. Tall green reeds are associated with water, fertility, abundance, wealth, and rebirth. The sound of a reed pipe is often considered the voice of a soul pining for God or a lost love.

On September 24, 2012,Michael BaylyofCatholics for Marriage Equality MNwas interviewed by Suzanne Linton of Our World Today about same-sex relationships and why Catholics can vote 'no' on the proposed Minnesota anti-marriage equality amendment.

Readers write . . .

"I believe your blog to be of utmost importance for all people regardless of their orientation. . . . Thank you for your blog and the care and dedication that you give in bringing the TRUTH to everyone."– William

"Michael, if there is ever a moment in your day or in your life when you feel low and despondent and wonder whether what you are doing is anything worthwhile, think of this: thanks to your writing on the internet, a young man miles away is now willing to embrace life completely and use his talents and passions unashamedly to celebrate God and his creation. Any success I face in the future and any lives I touch would have been made possible thanks to you and your honesty and wisdom."– AB

"Since I discovered your blog I have felt so much more encouraged and inspired knowing that I'm not the only gay guy in the Catholic Church trying to balance my Faith and my sexuality. Continue being a beacon of hope and a guide to the future within our Church!"– Phillip

"Your posts about Catholic issues are always informative and well researched, and I especially appreciate your photography and the personal posts about your own experience. I'm very glad I found your blog and that I've had the chance to get to know you."– Crystal

"Thank you for taking the time to create this fantastic blog. It is so inspiring!"– George

"I cannot claim to be an expert on Catholic blogs, but from what I've seen, The Wild Reed ranks among the very best."– Kevin

"Reading your blog leaves me with the consolation of knowing that the words Catholic, gay and progressive are not mutually exclusive.."– Patrick

"I grieve for the Roman institution’s betrayal of God’s invitation to change. I fear that somewhere in the midst of this denial is a great sin that rests on the shoulders of those who lead and those who passively follow. But knowing that there are voices, voices of the prophets out there gives me hope. Please keep up the good work."– Peter

"I ran across your blog the other day looking for something else. I stopped to look at it and then bookmarked it because you have written some excellent articles that I want to read. I find your writing to be insightful and interesting and I'm looking forward to reading more of it. Keep up the good work. We really, really need sane people with a voice these days."– Jane Gael